DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 7, Figures 20-21, Claims 1-10, 14-17, and 22-23 in the reply filed on 08/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-7, 15-17, and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner because they appear to be not directed to the elected species. Specifically, in claim 2, the second and third ground electrodes form an integral structure. In paragraph 61 supporting the elected species, the second ground electrode is numbered 20, the first ground electrode is numbered 40, and the fourth ground electrode is numbered 100. The third ground electrode is not discussed, however, since only electrode 60 is not numbered, 60 is assumed to be the third ground electrode. The third ground electrode 60 and the second ground electrode 20 do not appear to form an integral structure in the elected figures 20 and 21. For this reason claims 2-7 are withdrawn.
Similar arguments as above with respect to claim 2 apply to claim 15. In claim 15, the first and fourth ground electrodes form an integral structure, but they are not integral in the elected figures.
Although withdrawn, claims 2 and 15 also raise clarity and enablement issues. Claim 1 includes four electrodes while claim 2 makes them into two electrodes by stating that they are integral. These are mutually exclusive concepts that cannot coexist in a single structure. Figure 20 appears to show only two electrodes since structures 40 and 60 (also 20 and 100) are shown to be a single continuous structure.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "20", “40” and "100”, “60" have both been used to designate two ground electrodes with four reverence characters. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8-10, 14, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Gupta et al. (US 9040854).
In re claim 1, Gupta, in figures 1-21, discloses an MEMS switch, comprising: a base substrate (108); an electrode structure on the base substrate, comprising a first ground electrode, a signal transmission line, a second ground electrode, a first drive electrode and a third ground electrode which are sequentially arranged on the base substrate at intervals (the electrodes are labeled without numbers, as best seen in figure 4a and also shown in other figures); and a metal beam (104) stretching over the electrode structure, wherein a first end of the metal beam is electrically connected to the third ground electrode, an orthographic projection of a second end of the metal beam on the base substrate is within an orthographic projection of the signal transmission line on the base substrate, and an orthographic projection of the metal beam on the base substrate is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the first drive electrode on the base substrate (this is best seen in figure 5 and also shown in embodiment of figure 17).
In re claim 8, Gupta, in figures 1-21, discloses a first dielectric layer (dielectric layers are discussed in first two paragraphs of column 4 of the specification) on a side of the first drive electrode away from the base substrate, wherein an overlap region of the orthographic projections of the metal beam and the first drive electrode on the base substrate is a first overlap region, and an orthographic projection of the first dielectric layer on the base substrate has an area greater than an area of an orthographic projection of the first overlap region on the base substrate (the metal beam is clearly smaller in width than the substrate as best shown in figures 5 and 17, thereby meeting the claim limitations).
In re claim 9, Gupta, in figures 1-21, discloses a second dielectric layer (dielectric layers are discussed in first two paragraphs of column 4 of the specification) on a side of the signal transmission line away from the base substrate, wherein the orthographic projections of the metal beam and the signal transmission line on the base substrate have a second overlap region, and an orthographic projection of the second dielectric layer on the base substrate has an area greater than an area of an orthographic projection of the second overlap region on the base substrate (the metal beam is clearly smaller in width than the substrate as best shown in figures 5 and 17, thereby meeting the claim limitations).
In re claim 10, Gupta, in figures 1-21, discloses that the metal beam is shaped as a straight structure (as seen in figure 4a), or an arc that is convex to a side away from the base substrate.
In re claim 14, Gupta, in figures 1-21, discloses a fourth ground electrode on a side of the first ground electrode away from the second ground electrode, and a second drive electrode between the first ground electrode and the fourth ground electrode; wherein the second end of the metal beam is electrically connected to the fourth ground electrode (this is best shown in figure 4a), the orthographic projection of the metal beam on the base substrate is overlapped with an orthographic projection of the second drive electrode on the base substrate (this is best shown in figure 5 and also show in figure 17).
In re claim 23, Gupta discloses a handset application for the device (see column 2, lines 26-40).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 9040854) in view of Saito (US 9287050).
In re claim 22, Gupta discloses the claimed device except for the metal beam being made of one of the claimed materials. Saito however, in figures 1-15, discloses a similar device having a metal beam (16) being formed from aluminum (see line 40, column 3). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used aluminum, or any other good conductor such as the claimed conductor materials, as taught by Saito to make the beam of Gupta to provide low resistance, and thus reduced heat generation, to the metal beam.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is (571)270-3908. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 5712723985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Alexander Talpalatski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights